I think that good dancers can be born or made. I think that GREAT dancers are all made. No matter how much talent you're born with, you don't become great without working your butt off.

Reminds me of a story about Michael Jordan, the legendary basketball player. He says that, with every team he's been on, he would show up for practice an hour earlier than everybody else and do layup after layup after layup. This the man who is seven (?) feet tall, more or less, and who is a "natural" at basketball.

I agree that great dancers are made rather than born. I also think that a lot of success depends on your inner psychology (if that's the right expressions). From personal experience I know some movements tend to be easier/harder depending on how I feel about them on the day. If my head is not into it, it might take 100 hours of practice to get a movement right, as opposed to 10 hours if I'm in the right mental state. This is something that's very hard to control, and might require a complete rewire in how you think.

I agree that dancers are made and not just born. some people do have in their genes the ability to perform and move easier than others. I hear so many times that I have two left fee and some people do but I think they don't trust themselves.

We have one lady dancer that just does not get it but I think she is trying to jump before she crawls and is not listening really to the message that is being provided. or perhaps she just cant understand the steps, but she persevere and that is a good thing, she will eventually get it.

Logged

Dance is a delicate balance between perfection and beauty. ~Author UnknownDance Forum

Reminds me of a true account I read a billion years ago, so I can't remember where. The author was talking about children and creativity. He said that a group of children was asked in kindergarten who of them could draw. Every single child raised his or her hand excitedly. The same group of children was asked five or six years later ( in the final grade of primary school) who of them could draw. Only a few children raised their hands. the author used that experience to illustrate his premise that our schools and larger society educate the creativity out of children and place value judgments on what "good" drawing (or whatever) looks like. Which is an aside to this topic.

To bring it back to topic, I think that a lot of it depends on how you define being able to dance, Can everybody dance? I think yes. But some people's dancing may always be stick figures and some people's dancing may be Rembrandt, comparatively speaking. Our society has decided that good dancing looks like Rembrandt and that stick figures belong to people who "can't dance." That's why so many people think they can't dance -- because a negative value judgment has been placed on what they can do.

I think that anyone can improve their dancing by finding a good teacher and by working hard. That doesn't mean that everyone would be able to become a dance equivalent of Rembrandt, given time and effort. There really are differing levels of ability. Otherwise, everyone with the desire and the financial means to do so would buy enough lessons, spend the time with great teachers, and win all the comps. They would if they could; they don't because they can't. They are limited by their natural abilities, just as we all are. I'm good at some things, bad at some things, great at some things and truly horrid at some things, even though I can do them all, to some extent.

But I do believe that everyone who ends up a dance Rembrandt has put a lot of work into it. That's what I mean when I say that great dancers are all made, not born. You may be born with the potential to become a dance Rembrandt, but you won't become one unless you work at it. A fair dancer? Sure. A good dancer, possibly. But a truly great dancer? I don't think so.

Reminds me of a true account I read a billion years ago, so I can't remember where. The author was talking about children and creativity. He said that a group of children was asked in kindergarten who of them could draw. Every single child raised his or her hand excitedly. The same group of children was asked five or six years later ( in the final grade of primary school) who of them could draw. Only a few children raised their hands. the author used that experience to illustrate his premise that our schools and larger society educate the creativity out of children and place value judgments on what "good" drawing (or whatever) looks like. Which is an aside to this topic.

And that was the author's presumption. Maybe the kids were old enough to compare their output and realized that other kids drew much better than they did? Thus, the first 'I can draw' was basically I can make a mark on a piece of paper. The second was 'can I make marks that actually look like what I am drawing'.

And, IMHO, you're kinda reinforcing the author's point. It's often value judgments such as "That's not really drawing; that's just marks on a piece of paper," that discourage little ones from continuing to draw as best they're able and perhaps learning to draw more than just stick figures.

IMV, similarly, value judgments such as "That's not really dancing; it's just [blah,]" can discourage people who otherwise might take a stab at learning more about dance.

which seems to be getting to the 'everything you do is perfect' attitude that has guided a significant fraction of parents - resulting I think in a lot of privilidged and spoiled children that now assume that if their output is not recognized as brilliant then the fault is in the judge not the artist.